Arctic sea ice reaches seasonal low, alarmists cry Wolf

Breaking news: ice melts in summer! It’s mid-September and Arctic sea ice extent has reached its normal low point. In an alarmist story, the Arizona Daily Star reports, “Summer ice melt in Arctic growing.” The story says: “Arctic sea ice melted this summer to the second-lowest level since record-keeping began more than 50 years ago, scientists reported Thursday, mostly blaming global warming.” True enough, but so what?

The graph below shows the Arctic sea ice extent in relation to recent years.

Arctic-sea-ice-sep15

 Notice that the apparent turn-around has happened earlier than in recent years. What such stories almost never report is what is going on in the Antarctic. This year, the Antarctic sea ice extent is above average. The same thing happened in 2007 when the Arctic sea ice extent reached the lowest extent ever recorded by satellites. At that same time, Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent broke the previous maximum record of 16.03 million sq. km and reached 16.26 million sq. km. [Source: The Cryosphere Today, a publication of The Polar Research Group, University of Illinois]

 Antarctic-above-average

 Fluctuation in the extent of Arctic sea ice is normal and not cause for alarm. According to a study from the University of Copenhagen, “For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts.”

The Star story says, “The summer minimum is a key measurement for scientists monitoring man-made global warming.” Maybe those scientists should look at the whole picture. There are many complicating factors in natural variation, as the Copenhagen study points out.

And, just to put things in perspective, I offer two other reports on Arctic ice:

 “A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated.”

“2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles or 36,000 square kilometers] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74 and 80 N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.” (Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153)

Or this story:

Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish And Icebergs Melt

 The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway .

 Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

 Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are being found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

 This is from an AP story which appeared in the Washington Post, November 2, 1922.

It seems, therefore, that nothing out of the ordinary is happening, including the alarmists’ cry of “Wolf.”

For more background see:

 A Perspective on Climate Change a tutorial

 Arctic Temperatures: Not So Hot

 Arctic tipping point, will there be an ice-free Arctic

 Natural Climate Cycles

Advertisements

49 comments

  1. I have one small request for you narrowminded anti-science conservative types there in southern Arizona. When your state becomes uninhabitable due to extreme heat and lack of water, don’t even think about moving north up to my state of Wyoming. Stay there in AZ living like lizards in the burning bask of your ignorance and political deceits . 

    1. Hey Dewey,
      When you are buried in snow this winter, come on down to sunny Arizona, spend money, and try to educate us poor benighted Arizonans.

      1. Great article JD. It’s rare to see the truth in the media anymore. I’ve used this same argument with some of my Green friends in California. Sometimes you get an “ah-ha” moment and sometimes they just call you a dirty earth killing captilist pig. You take the good with the bad. Thanks again. 

  2. No kidding.  And sparks cause fire in dried forests, and lots of rain makes floods, and sometimes earthquakes make waves!  Big deal.  So ice melts more sometimes — I can see that when I’m sucking down a few drinks after work.  What else is there to know!  I agree with you:  Why do newspapers cover this crap every day; we all know it happens.  I can’t see why we get excited by these changes in the natural world.  Must be those corrupt scientist just trying to get money to measure stuff.  Kinda like journalists trying to get money to write stories about what’s happening in their town when we can all look around and see what’s happening without some stupid writer trying to tell us what to think.  Seriously, what a waste of time!  Does anybody really need the information in the Voice of Tucson.  Freakin’ ripoff if you ask me.  I mean sports reporting for football is a good example — give me a break.  They do the same damn thing every game– somebody runs it, somebody tackles, they toss a pass and kick the ball through the posts. And yet every freakin weekend, some stupid writer at the Voice types up a game story like something new happened.  What a waste of time and money– why don’t you guys get real jobs like the rest of us. Information about what’s happening in the world is such a load of crap.  Thanks for pointing that out man!

  3. It is a shame that in this day and age, we have people who fail to comprehend how man-made events are effecting this planet. We have here a certain Jonathan DuHamel who fails to comprehend that not only the science-y things but also plain English. Arizona Daily Star reports, “Summer Ice Meld in Arctic Growing.” This poor sap thought this means ice is melting in summer. We all know ice melts in summer. It melts more than it melts in winter. But what the is reporting is that although it’s normal for ice to melt it summer, it is melting at a far greater rate than it did the year before, the decade before, the century before. The reason: average global temperature is raising ever so fractionally every year primarily due to mans unabashed raping of planet earth. 

    The anti-science people are too narrow -minded and to hard-headed to ever agree to their follies. Because they believe God or whatever imaginary friend they worship told them that the earth is theirs for all the taking. For so long as religion and medieval ideologies continue to influence the people, the earth is doomed. Except there is only hope in knowing men are leaving their belief in fantasy by droves as each year progresses.  

    I want to end this post by offending all Arizonians for being quite backward, seemingly racist, and anti-progress and anti-science. 

    1. Belief in God has nothing to do with it. Global Warming is natural and cyclic. Besides, when it all comes down to it, we are need of a good cataclysim to restore the natural balance of things anyway. The world is way too populated by the impressionable as evident here. Buy yourself a windmill, reduce your carbon footprint, feel good about yourself and have a great day. I’ll go start my 69 Camero and fill up on some fossil fuels, drag down the avenue and we’ll mantain the balance.  

      1. I hold it self-evident that belief in God, who commands his followers that the earth is their play-ground. Supposedly some such candy-land like places exists in some secret layer of the sky. Why care about this fragile planet when  candy land with 72 whores and never ending wine and milks exists. Yes. I’m mixing up the Christians and Muslim belief but all individual cloves of garlic have the same set of roots.  Wayne you’re  a typical provincial earth-rapist. I’m not going to let you have all the fun, hillbilly boy. I’m going to fire up my imaginary private jets. 

  4. And your point is?  The the pollution emanating from heavy industry on six of seven continents, millions of trucks, cars, trains and planes and billions of people don’t in any way affect the climate.  All 1500 legitimate (rather than the phonies used by conservatives) climate scientist from prestigious universities around the globe, are wrong.  And you, are the frickin expert.  Remember, we have a great deal more technology, a great many more climate scientists, a great deal more data, and great more climate-related disasters than 30 years ago, which you conservatives like to point to, because the predictions didn’t materialize then — hmmm, just like all the predictions you righties like to make about the second coming of Christ.  Sorry, but you really are morons.

  5. Look at NASA’s chart of minimum sea ice extent since the 1970s. The trend is clear.

    Then again it’s NASA’s data and we all know they’re just lying tree huggers.

  6. I thought this whole global warming thing was dead? I guess the fanatics just can’t get enough of the science-fiction or the potential money to be earned from selling the garbage associated with “mitigating” global warming. Please! We should not be so bold as to think that we can stop the awesome power of nature. All these liberal led companies and the drones that follow their lead (like Dewey) are as crooked as Solyndra and will soon go the way of the alchemist when faced by REAL science and not rhetoric. 

  7. Clever use of references, but the first (from 1817) comes on the heels of the “little ice age” so it is perfectly natural that there should have been a pullback at that time.  If you look at a map, 74 degrees south is actually quite far south for ice in that part of the Atlantic.  The second reference is not at all incompatible with the global warming hypothesis…so what if it was 90 years ago?  It was about 50 years after the Industrial Revolution got into full swing and as such it makes perfect sense. 
    Anyhow, the hallmark of global warming is radical EXTREMES in weather (both hot and cold) tied to a long-term warming trend.  You are beginning see this year in and year out.  Climate and weather are NOT the same thing and the sooner people figure that out, the better.
    Living in Mississippi, I can’t count the number of people who comment after each snow (and we had 3 last year) how global warming is crap.  Yet…you don’t hear them talking about the continuous, oppressive heat from March to November… the record highs, the increasingly numerous and violent thunderstorms, etc.
    There is actually little dispute that temperatures on a global basis are increasing.  The dispute comes when looking at the causes of the increase and whether or not we can do something to slow or halt that rise.

    1. Tim, I like your use of fact based research and at the end of your comment you reach the real question, “Can we slow or halt the rise.” That is a good question. Again, I am not questioning that there is a climate change occuring, I just don’t think we are the cause nor do I think we can do anything other than adapt and I definetly don’t think the answer is for the corporate sector to milk it. 

  8. Well… so far the responses could be a little more constructive.   Mr. DuHamel, your quotes from the past are actually very informative.  I would have bolded the dates for the benefit of some that might not catch that important part.  It’s important to have as much of the entire story as possible and knowing how far back the climate has been fluctuating is part of that.   

    On that same coin, I would use an article of yours from last month,  “Temperature variations, not humans, control atmospheric CO2 content”, as another part of the overall story.  Those graphs do show that each year since 1959, we’ve been pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere and that each year since then, the atmosphere has had an increase in the amount measured.  Some years have less of an increase, some more, but always an increase.   The hotness of the year influences the increase, but even in the most extreme cases of cold, it’s always an increase.

    I have personal reasons for wanting to keep Arizona habitable, but feel that more of the story is needed to enable action on that.  But despite bad science examples on both sides of the debate,  the current trends do indicate that we’re in trouble in Arizona.  I want to stop that slide. 

    1. edit:  More responses came while I wrote, and since your story is on Google News, this will continue.  Some response have been more constructive since my first post.

  9. The proper measure of Arctic sea ice is volume, or area times thickness. This has been going down over the last 30 years (yes, there are reasonable measures of overall accuracy) at an accelerating rate, so that ice near the Pole which was about 15 feet thick at minimum in 1980 is now, as verified by the vessel Polarstern, less than 3 feet at minimum in large areas.  Minimum volume of ice in the Arctic is now about 40% of what it was five years ago, and 23% of what it was 25 years ago. Maximum volume is down likewise. Area and extent, which are lagging indicators, are down far less, but, as volume continues its present path, will show sharp drops over the next 8 years.

    There are two ways this matters to Tucson residents. First, the short term. Over the next 10-20 years, on average an ice-free Arctic that absorbs heat instead of reflecting it back into space, first in summer and then into winter, will add 1 degree F to your summer temperatures (assuming you’re like the rest of the globe) on top of the 1 degree F they’re already projected to rise, and 2-3 degrees F in winter on top of the 2-3 degrees F already projected. This will accelerate the exhaustion of the water supply for rivers and the frequency of wildfires and droughts — ones as great or greater than the ones you and Texas just experienced are likely over the next 10 years. The increased heat in the air should also add perhaps mph to storms on average.

    Second, the increase in water warmth in the Arctic will melt methane clathrates there at a fast rate, which will starting about 30 years from now accelerate the rise in your temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in summer and 2-3 degrees in winter each decade. Initial projections are that by sometime in the next 30-50 years, you will have temps greater than 100 degrees about half the year and will be in drought conditions much of the time much greater than those that caused the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma in the 1930s.

    The correct measure of Antarctic sea ice, by the way, is area, not extent — and area has not reached new records in either direction. Moreover, the melt of Antarctic land ice has been verified by a couple of recent studies to have started, and it is projected that in the next 10-20 years the southward movement of the underwater warm circumpolar current will reach the Antarctic Peninsula, at which point this melt will accelerate and real decreases in southern-summer sea ice area will begin. There will apparently be no effect on Tucson residents in the short or long term, as Tucson is more than 300 feet above sea level and well away from the new seacoasts 300 years from now or so. However, it is hard to see how Tucson will be doing well 90 years from now anyway, given that the area for hundreds of miles in all directions will be in massive drought, perhaps 5-15 degrees hotter, and subject to massive storms.

    All this assumes, of course, that the world doesn’t reduce carbon emissions by at least 50% in the next 20 years compared to present emissions, and another 60% in the 10 years after that. 

  10. I think we should just not worry about it.  Why bother “measuring” or “analyzing” our physical world, all of us alive now probably won’t be around to see the consequences of our actions, so who cares anyways!  Plus, when The Rapture comes, we’ll all be in a better place, there!  RAmen!

  11. I don’t dispute the arctic ice is melting, its pretty hard to deny ones lying eyes when they have decades of photographic proof the ice is melting, fast! Now what causes is it will be forever debated, argued, whined, cried about, blamed on this or that! Does it really matter whether its man caused or nature caused? Fact is ice is melting, sea levels are rising, now I hate to bust either sides bubble but its the height of arrogance to think one can change this great planets direction in weather patterns, at best we can migrate away from these flooded coastal areas when they come, some speculate within 50 years 95% of Florida will be ocean bottom real estate! Many major present day cities will be under the oceans, don’t see the religious zealots or the atheist zealots winning anything by arguing who is right or who is wrong on its causes, fact is ice is melting, sea levels are rising, and  mankind in his pitiful abilities cannot do one darn thing to stop or change it, to believe other wise is arrogance!:-)

  12. Now 50 to 100 years from now, none of us watching these unfolding changes in climate will be here, our decendants will, and its doubtful even with 100 years of more increased intelligence, intellect, scientific discovery we will solve how to master old mother nature! Now for the fellow in Wyoming, enjoy that snow, sub zero weather this winter, as well as them added heating bills, I got water, and love this mild winter weather here in Arizona, thats why I retired to Arizona and left the colder climate of my home state! Now the beauty of America is no zealot of any category can tell me where to live or not live, so if I was foolish enough to desire to freeze and have high winter heating bills and come to Wyoming, you could not do one darn thing to stop me, but the reason they have the term snow birds is folks do travel between the two extremes, I just prefer to not do so!:-)

  13. Uh, what happened to the hole in the ozone? Must be more grant money available for people who had their brains cooked by global warming.

  14. Jonathan  DuHamel are you a scientist? No? Then don’t write opinion pieces on topics you know nothing about to push your political agenda. Science is non-partisan, thousands of scientists in this world study the effects of global warming on this planet. If the readers want to know more information on the subject I suggest they go to peer reviewed scientific articles,  and go to the collaborative, non-partisan experts on the subject, the IPCC at http://www.ipcc.ch, and not read opinion pieces that are written by uneducated, agenda pushing people.
     

      1. What a joke.  Why don’t you see climate gate?  Manufactured “expose” by the right wing.   Try an open mind.  It won’t kill you.

  15. Love it.  Global Warming Climate Change apologists show up with reactions that are basically “so?  You have evidence? WE all know the earth is warming and MAN IS THE CAUSE!!!!!”  Maybe if you shout louder, or write you entire posts in all caps, you’ll convince more of us ‘skeptics’.  Then again, maybe we’ll just go on thinking you’re deluded, or statists.  Either way, excellent article.  50 years from now you climate change apologists will be the laughingstock of history.  That is, if you don’t succeed in your nefarious plans for wealth redistribution thinly disguised as ‘science’.

    1. Yeah, I hate all those rich scumbag scientists just edging for their next gravy-train grant check.  I mean, where do they get off?  What, fifteen, twenty years getting their “oh so special” Phds, working part time…in a lab somewhere, cookin’ up who knows what, who are they kidding, really.  Probably already getting secret federal grants (fat checks to be sure) to study dodo birds or stoopid lil’ lizards or sumpin’?  I mean can’t they find something productive to do with their time, like writing ad hominim attacks, huh Caleb?

  16. The truly rich folks, not them paper rich right wingers who are in them upside down/right side up mortgages since neither one matters don’t pay that mortgage and your evicted/forecosed on, or don’t pay that auto loan and the repo man takes your prize possession them wheels and puts you to walking or getting on a bus/taxi! Love to try and equate climate change and folks worrying about as “wealth redistrubution” or to coin them looney tunes in them out of season holloween colonial outfits in the tea party as “don’t touch my money, don’t tax me”, terrified of someone touching their money! Now them truly rich folks don’t worry about such trivial issues, they might be worrying about their next limo, yacht, private plane purchase or that extra mansion or two, one can bet one thing they don’t troll the net with us 98% two pay/dividend/annuity/pension checks away from homelessness and poverty folks, no the funniest right wingers in the world are them paper rich ones, they truly think they are on par with them icons whom they worship every evening on fox network like Sean Hannity/Bill Orielly them multi-millionaires laughing at their fans all the way to the bank or that oxycontin addicted multi-millionaire who roams the radio waves getting richer feeding that right wing snake oil cure all that ailes you stuff, at best it makes them a bit tipsy, some down right drunk on it, much like the old western peddler who sold the original snake oil, syrup laced with alcohol, cured nothing but sure was popular! Climate change and those wanting to live in a pipe dream to fix it, has absolutely nothing to do with “redistribution of wealth”, its 99.9% folks convinced they can fix the impossible in mother nature, don’t know which is worse the climate change zealots of the right wingers drunk on that right wing snake oil rhetoric!:-)

  17. One thing for sure climate changes, has been before modern man became the dominate species, am sure the extinction of the dinosaurs for what ever theory one wishes to believe was not caused by their merely living and breathing on this old planet, in fact if one believes the scientific community we have had more than one extinction periods, and doubtful we have seen the last, all its going to take for all of us to be worrying about survival of the fittiest is a “super volcano, a undetected huge meteor “one seems to have slipped into earths atmopshere the other day and witnessed by millions on western USA, with no pre-warning from anyone science, psychics, etc., I think I will opt for melting ice caps, rising sea levels as a better option of the ones I just mentioned, seems we might be able to migrate away from coast lines, but doubt we can clean the atmosphere of things a super volcano/huge meteor might cause, mankind is limited on our abilities, the old bible predicts a day something horrible will happen which will make mens hearts faint with fear, one can pick ones apocalyptic event and nothing much one can do about them!:-)

  18. I believe in climate change since unless one is a complete moron, never went to school, never read anything but a comic book, scientist’s have tons of geological proof in ice cores samples of how climate has changed over the millions of years etc., the continental drift was not that long ago a unknown but geologist’s can prove it exists and that continents once which touched do not anymore! Now one can debate till the cows come home what is causing climate change, does not matter what is causing it, its happening, and to think one can fix it, change it or correct it in any manner is pure lunacy, arrogance! I see the climate fixer’s about as looney tune as the climate change denier’s only difference is one is crazy, arrogant and the other is blind and a moron!

  19. Bob2—ROFLOL—the data is the data. It may only be in two spots–but that’s all we have. Do you really believe only a couple of spots on the Earth had huge climate swings? Stop reading coolaide sites and think for your self!

    1. GISP2 is one spot in the world. Not two. Not even 10. One spot is not all we have. See figure 3. Notice that local temperature changes are not synchronized. In fact many of the warming events in Greenland are countered by opposite cooling events in Antarctica (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Bond-Gerard-Bond.html)
      So it’s nuts for WUWT to just use greenland as if it reflects the entire globe. The fact is that global temperature has not fluctuated as much as individual spots like greenland or antarctica, so using the greenland record to claim recent changes are tiny is flawed.
      WUWT doesn’t even compare greenland properly (the site is generally incompetent). GISP2 ends in 1850 and to extend the record to the present day WUWT incorrectly adds the *global instrumental temperature record* to the end. What they should have done is add the instrumental temperature record for greenland.
      Here’s what it looks like if you add greenland temperature (greenland has warmed a lot more in the last 150 years than the global average):

      Recent warming aint so insignificant now is it?
       
      Also you might want to read this which debunks the most popular “skeptic” argument, which is behind the WUWT (ab)use of GISP2:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

  20. Bob2—look at the data—are your really really afraid of a little —tiny—tiny—tiny–blip in temperature???–look at the data over the thousands of years–just wow!—critical thinking is lacking in many

    1. Already it’s not tiny. We are approaching the maximum warmth of the holocene itself. Go past that and we enter new territory – temperature levels not seen for millions of years.
      CO2 is already at levels not seen for millions of years.

  21. Bob2—OK let’s take this very slowly. What “proof” do you think you have that the recent tiny warming is man-made? Also what “proof” do you have that we should be afraid of warming to come? Think about it–then please provide some critical thinking—from yourself–to convince me and others.

    1. I am not claiming proof, but it is feasible.
      The 0.8C warming over the last 100 years century is a considerable amount. If scientists are right then another 2C or so warming is in store. That amount will definitely tip us past highs for millions of years. We’ll go from the current earth to a different earth in a matter of centuries.

  22. Globing climate cycles are a norm- but the caveat is; what causes them?
    Over the last 500,000 years or so- we have had glacial and interglacial periods (warmer periods with less ice- and code ice ages_ predicated on changes in the earths orbit and tilt. We are now in the interglacial known as the ‘Holocene’.
     
    Warming events of the past where several- when there where Alligators in Greenland, and Palm trees in Alaska. These ‘cycles’ where predicated on the amount of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Too little C02- you had a ‘cold house’ too much C02 – a hothouse- C02 is a necessary gas in the atmosphere at the right level.
     
    In earths past C02 rose from tectonic events- the shift in plates, releasing C02 that was from the sea- into the atmosphere- from volcanoes as well- but the process was very slow- it took thousands of years for C02 to rise 100ppm- hence the climate changed over thousands of years- so extinctions where minimal- excepts to this where the Permian/Triassic warming of 250 million years ago , when massive amounts of carbon where thrown into the atmosphere- and over 80% of all life went extinct. 
     
    The last great warming on earth took place 55 million years ago in the PETM- The Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum when global temperatures rose 6-9 degrees C- the release of huge amounts of carbon and also methane caused a huge spike in temperatures over 20,000 years. The earth remained warm for 10s of millions of years after.
     
    C02 levels today at 391ppm are the highest since the Miocene- 20 million years ago- but they are rising 10,000 times the natural forcing of the past from natural climate cycles caused by the rise or decline of C02.
     
    C02 levels this high- sustained over time will lead to Miocene conditions- meaning; sea levels 25 meters higher- no arctic ice year round- and most of the American Midwest a dust-bowl.

    1. The PETM warming was caused by release of methane from methane hydrates probably due to pressure changes accompanying tectonic shifts. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas which also reacts in the atmosphere to produce carbon dioxide. Warming of the oceans will also put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The warming at PETM came from methane before the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

  23. Peter-
    “C02 levels this high- sustained over time will lead to Miocene conditions- meaning; sea levels 25 meters higher- no arctic ice year round- and most of the American Midwest a dust-bowl”
    And your proof for this is?
    CO2 has followed the rise and fall of the Earth temperature. We have in the past been in an ice age with CO2 at 1000ppm
    Reply

    1.  It’s not the absolute level of CO2 that causes warming, it’s the proportional change and rate of that change. The warming effect of CO2 is per doubling, so that CO2 levels are so low makes it easier to double it. If CO2 levels were currently at 3000ppm then our 2ppm per year would hardly matter. It would take over 1000 years to double it.
       

  24. Mr DuHamel,

    As a scientist I would expect you to know the value of isolated data points given without any context.  

    Regarding the 1817 observation: How much ice currently exists in the Greenland Sea today compared to 1817?  Is 36,000 km^2 a large number for sea ice extent?   

    Regarding the 1922 observations:  How does open water at 81.29N compare to what we routinely see today off the coast of Svalbard (Norway)?  Is recent change in Arctic sea ice more pronounced in the Atlantic sector  or the Pacific sector?
     
    As a geologist, tell us, what does the science say regarding the last time the arctic had this little ice covering it?  When is the last time the arctic had zero ice covering it? 

    1. According to the USGS, the Arctic was ice-free, at least seasonally during the Pliocene about 3 million years ago. I don’t know for sure of other, more recent times, but ice was minimal during the Holocene climatic optimums at 4000 and 7000 years ago. The 1817 and 1922 observations are, of course, anecdotal, but they indicate that current melts are nothing unusual.

  25. It is funny how your “data” is all from the the last decade, as if one decade can be extrapolated to represent the entire scope of history.  What you present is just another attempt to manipulate data
     
     
     
     
     
     
    What you present is misinformation, not science.  Your argument that data from the most recent 10 years of time can be used to exptrapolate the entire scope of history is ludicrous.  In order for your logic to be consistent, you must also posit that losing 10 hands in a row in blackjack means that you will lose 10o% of all blackjack hands played, and we both know that is not true.
      I have one question for you.  Which right wing think tank are you trolling for?
     
     
     

  26. Bob2—What!!!!!!! WTF?? you are talking babble speak. There are basic transmission reflection, absorptionequations one can write. The AGW crowd has pinned their hope of run away global warming on positive feedbacks that basically aren’t there in Nature. Jeff–whose coo-laide are you drinking?
     
    Jeff—please the same question–for all to see. So please explain what proof  you have for run-away global warming? Please tell me why you think it’s a problem? Please shed your wisdom and tell as all why we skeptics are wrong?

    1. Even without positive feedbacks we are still due more than 1C warming from CO2 rise alone. You are wrong that there are no positive feedbacks in nature. In fact on short timescales positive feedback is directly observed. ENSO itself is affected by positive feedbacks, eg reduced cloud cover during El Ninos amplifies the warming.

  27. I love how you include the average for Antarctic sea ice but not the arctic sea ice graphs.. 

    Cherry pick much?

    This article is another example of willful ignorance and misinformation of people who unfortunately are intelligent enough to know better.

    Some parts of this society will never accept the truth, no matter how clear it appears in front of them, because it clashes with their ideological point of view.

    I pity you. 

    1. You didn’t notice the first graph showing Arctic sea ice? I agree with your last sentence and you are one of them.

  28. Arctic Sea Ice melt—been there done that. The ice has melted as much,maybe more in the past. We don’t know since we didn;t have satellite data back in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s:

    http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/arctic

    I especially love the chicken little newspaper artciles. It seems the chicken little types keep raising new generations.

Comments are closed.